THE EOYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
81 
Committee considered that the report could be no longer delayed. Political 
reasons required that an order for the guns for the Prussian iron-clads should 
be given out. The small capacity shells, it was stated, would be fired here¬ 
after, but a report must now be made. 
We do not know whether it will occasion surprise or not when we state 
that the report was favourable to the Krupp guns. But so it was. 
In passing, we would here remark that Captain von Doppelmair* s con¬ 
clusion-derived from the result, be it remarked, of two rounds with shell 
of improper construction—that “ loaded Palliser chilled shell on striking 
armour plates explode comparatively early,'” is not in accordance with the 
results of the extensive trials which have been made in this country, and 
is another example of the danger of jumping at foregone conclusions on 
insufficient evidence. Further, Captain von Doppelmair ought to be aware 
that it is possible to retard the explosion by various special dispositions of 
the bursting charge; and this objection, if it existed, could not be regarded 
as a permanent or important one. As a matter of fact, however, it does 
not exist. 1 2 
No less than four months were allowed to elapse before the practice 
against plates was resumed. On November 28, however, the desired trial 
of small capacity live Palliser shell against the 7-inch target took place. 
The result was remarkable enough. Captain von Doppelmair, however, 
omits to record it; just as he omits all reference to the rendering of the 
report at a time when the trials were incomplete. He merely refers to the 
trial in general terms, and sums up with the conclusion that “ the new 
Palliser chilled English shell were not better than the previous ones.” 3 
Let us see what really happened. The account given by the “ Times ” 
correspondent, and which we have verified from other sources, is as follows :— 
“Then came the long-hoped-for Palliser live shell at the 7-inch target; 
range the same as in the old experiments. Two rounds were fired. The 
first struck near the left lower corner of the target and went completely 
through, bursting as it passed through the backing; the point of the 
projectile struck 1 ft. from the left of the plate, and 8 ins. from the bottom. 
The corner was torn off, and a ragged blackened hole would have been made 
through the ship. The second hit fairly on a very sound spot on the middle 
7-inch plate ins. from the top, and 4 ft. from the left; it penetrated 
1 It is worth while here to call attention to the fact, that when the Krupp steel shells are found 
not to explode quite quickly enough—sometimes not at all—Captain yon Doppelmair has a specific 
ready at hand, and promptly proposes to insure and accelerate the explosion by only partially fill ing 
the shell, or by roughening the interior.—Doppelmair, p. 36. The suggestion is well meant, no 
doubtj and the effect of its adoption would be so far successful that explosion would certainly take 
place. But the explosion would be even more rapid than that complained of in the Palliser shell— 
since a shell partially filled with powder, or roughened internally, would in a large majority of cases 
explode in the gun. 
2 Doppelmair, p. 49. But we have not merely an omission, but a contradiction ; for while we get 
this confident condemnation of the new ( i.e . small capacity) Palliser shell, we get, almost in the same 
paragraph, the statement that {{ unfortunately this trial did not give quite decisive answers . . * 
as all the targets . . . were already so far injured by previous experiments that all the pro¬ 
jectiles struck on damaged parts of the shield ” (p. 49). Nevertheless we are told, on the evidence 
of this trial, that the new English shells were as bad as the old. We are further told, that the 
new Gruson projectiles fired on the occasion gave unsatisfactory results, but “ this result does not, 
however, speak against the new projectiles.” 
11 
